Lecture and Forum on "Why I abandoned evolution"

[TheManWithNoName]

Actually coming up Tuesday at my university. From the website:

Dr. Carl Werner, author of Evolution: The Grand Experiment, will be speaking on his scientific reasoning's for why he chose to abandon evolution through the years after he originally started on a quest to prove evolution. He will present a 1 hour lecture at the end of which he has an open forum where attendees are encouraged to counter argue his points and challenge his thought processes on why evolution can be dismantled and even prove his points wrong. Sponsor: Campus Crusade for Christ.

It's going to be pretty interesting... The Campus Crusade has put out some interesting stuff before, (CleanHeart - "pornography is the AIDS of the mind") so it'll be pretty interesting to see what this guy has in store. Being a biology major, this is especially intriguing as well. It'll also be quite interesting to hear what biology faculty will have to say as well. Have you ever heard this guy speak before, or any other lecture like this? Everything I've heard that claims to use "scientific reasoning" to dismantle evolution reverts to "God", or a blatant lie ("There are NO fossils showing that..."). I'm actually fairly excited to see this guy get torn into.

[Darth Wong]

That sounds like the blurb to every Christian apologist book ever written: "Mr. Fancypants set out on a quest to disprove the existence of God, buuuut ... blah blah blah". I'm really getting tired of these people.

You would think that someone with a scientific background would know how stupid it looks to say you were trying to "prove the theory of evolution" in the first place, since you can never "prove" a scientific theory; you can only confirm some of its predictions.

[Duckie]

The only thing that turns up on TalkOrigins is that he's a member of AIG (the creation idiots, not the banker idiots) and that he claimed a program Dawkins wrote to simulate natural selection was fake because it the result was 'preselected', completely failing to understand the point of random mutation -> selection based on fitness.

Also if he's sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ he has a stamp straight from the subjects of Jesus Camp so he should be a right nutter.

[salm]

The Campus Crusade has put out some interesting stuff before, (CleanHeart - "pornography is the AIDS of the mind")

Ironic, when you consider that this is a much better analogy for religous funtamentalism.

[Surlethe]

That sounds like the blurb to every Christian apologist book ever written: "Mr. Fancypants set out on a quest to disprove the existence of God, buuuut ... blah blah blah". I'm really getting tired of these people.

Isn't it funny how they never mention the people who set out to prove the existence of God, but ... ?

[Stuart]

Dr. Carl Werner, author of Evolution: The Grand Experiment, will be speaking on his scientific reasoning's for why he chose to abandon evolution through the years after he originally started on a quest to prove evolution. He will present a 1 hour lecture at the end of which he has an open forum where attendees are encouraged to counter argue his points and challenge his thought processes on why evolution can be dismantled and even prove his points wrong. Sponsor: Campus Crusade for Christ.

This is called Mobying and its very common. "Gee guys, I was once one of you but........." then follows the spiel straight out of whatever bible they happen to be espousing. It's got to the point where I write off anybody who starts that way - I have yet to find a single Moby who actually checks out as a genuine convert.

[Darth Wong]

You wouldn't happen to know the origin of this "Mobying" term, would you?

[Stuart]

You wouldn't happen to know the origin of this "Mobying" term, would you?

Accounts vary. One is that it was a tactic used by a musician called "Moby" for political purposes prior to the 2000 and 2004 elections. However, when I was a campaign manager for some British local elections back in '82 the term was used then for the tactic of pretending to be a disillusioned supporter. Then it was simply attributed to British (especially cockney) rhyming slang as in Moby Dick = Right Prick. We used it pretty extensively against pro-GLC candidates. Back then of course the internet didn't exist so we used it at public meetings etc. I suspect that the term came over from British political circles via the internet.

"I'm a Union and Labour man, have been all my life." Dramatically holds up unidentifiable card, bus passes are good. "Proud of this I am, never in arrears. But what after you people have done to (Insert issue of choice) got to question how much you stand for the working man."

These days, Mobying seems to be primarily used by religious/anti-science nuts. I'm still waiting with anticipation for the claim "I used to believe in the theory of gravity until I stepped off the Empire State Building and.... Oh shit ...." THUD

[Darth Wong]

It would be beautiful if some of these anti-science nuts actually put their money where their flapping gums are, but I think we all know that won't happen. They will continue to reap the benefits of science while spitting on its intellectual credibility.

It kind of reminds me of right-wing soldiers who complain about "big government". Who exactly do they think is signing their paycheques? Santa Claus?

Anyway, when I run into these Mobys, I always think of C.S. Lewis, who used this tactic a long time ago. His book "Mere Christianity" is an excellent example of how they think. When you read it, it is painfully obvious that they guy has never taken a real step outside the world of Christianity, because he leaps to preposterous conclusions like "there are certain universal moral principles across all cultures and religions ... so Christianity is the correct one."

[Ziggy Stardust]

On a side note, I like this online description of his anti-evolution book:

The book teaches how science evaluates and classifies the creatures of the world we live in, both past and present. It also unveils the surprises that often force a radical re-evaluation of scientific theory and assumption. The book also includes hundreds of full-color photos.

That last sentence says a lot about the book's audience. "And you don't even have to read!"

[ray245]

The only thing that turns up on TalkOrigins is that he's a member of AIG (the creation idiots, not the banker idiots) and that he claimed a program Dawkins wrote to simulate natural selection was fake because it the result was 'preselected', completely failing to understand the point of random mutation -> selection based on fitness.

Also if he's sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ he has a stamp straight from the subjects of Jesus Camp so he should be a right nutter.

Although isn't everything in the world pre-determined from the start?

[Darth Wong]

The key phrase is "It also unveils the surprises that often force a radical re-evaluation of scientific theory and assumption." Standard anti-scientific rhetoric.

A correct scientific approach would be to produce a better model, but creationists never do that. They don't produce a model at all, but rather, they declare that no explanation is possible, hence you must accept their story, in lieu of an explanation.

Science deals in explanations. Religion deals in story-telling. The worst thing is that religious types can't break out of the story-telling mindset, and they think the theory of evolution has "holes" in it because it's not a complete story. They don't understand that it's not a story at all.

[Stuart]

It kind of reminds me of right-wing soldiers who complain about "big government". Who exactly do they think is signing their paycheques? Santa Claus?

Oh. that's just human nature. Ever been to a Condo Association meeting? Everybody wants lower Common Charges but everybody also wants their unit repainted and their roof replaced and their steps rebuilt and ... (sorry, sore point with me). It's just NIMBY at work again, everybody wants cuts but not in their piece of the pie.

It also unveils the surprises that often force a radical re-evaluation of scientific theory and assumption.

Conveniently missing the point that science works because when a surprise crops up, the world-view is adjusted to accommodate and explain it. Religion doesn't work because it will not adjust to accommodate and explain surprises. The religious proponents just stick their thumbs in their ears and keep chanting their mantras.

[Surlethe]

Science deals in explanations. Religion deals in story-telling. The worst thing is that religious types can't break out of the story-telling mindset, and they think the theory of evolution has "holes" in it because it's not a complete story. They don't understand that it's not a story at all.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. It seems to me that religions (or at least Christianity) started as an explanation: Why do we have these rituals? Why do the priests get to sit around all goddamn day and do nothing while we have to support their lazy asses? Why do rainbows show up after rainstorms? Why don't snakes have legs? People didn't know the answers, so they made up stories to explain them.

The problem is that when we actually came up with a way of methodically going through and improving our explanations for the way things are, all the religious ones were the first in the dustbin.

I have yet to find a single Moby who actually checks out as a genuine convert.

My wife started as a hard-line fundamentalist, and is now practically an atheist. Would you believe her?

[General Zod]

I'm not sure I entirely agree. It seems to me that religions (or at least Christianity) started as an explanation: Why do we have these rituals? Why do the priests get to sit around all goddamn day and do nothing while we have to support their lazy asses? Why do rainbows show up after rainstorms? Why don't snakes have legs? People didn't know the answers, so they made up stories to explain them.

Sheep herding primitives didn't exactly make the fine distinction between factual explanation and fiction that we do today. My own cynical take is that a few clever assholes got the idea they could make up explanations to how things worked and sucker in the populace for preferential treatment with a combination of showmanship, scaremongering and perhaps a few genuine tidbits of useful knowledge. (Kind of like Scientology really).

[Darth Wong]

Science deals in explanations. Religion deals in story-telling. The worst thing is that religious types can't break out of the story-telling mindset, and they think the theory of evolution has "holes" in it because it's not a complete story. They don't understand that it's not a story at all.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. It seems to me that religions (or at least Christianity) started as an explanation: Why do we have these rituals? Why do the priests get to sit around all goddamn day and do nothing while we have to support their lazy asses? Why do rainbows show up after rainstorms? Why don't snakes have legs? People didn't know the answers, so they made up stories to explain them.

You're missing the point. In the modern era, when we say "explanation", we actually mean "rational and comprehensible explanation". Certainly, if it were a crime scene, we would accept no less. Religious stories were intended to be used as explanations, but that doesn't mean they qualify as such, at least not in the modern sense.

I have yet to find a single Moby who actually checks out as a genuine convert.

My wife started as a hard-line fundamentalist, and is now practically an atheist. Would you believe her?

She's not a Moby.

[Patrick Degan]

I can't seem to find out anything about this person. Werner's apparently a medical doctor, with an undergrad degree in biology from the University of Missouri, and recipient of the Norman D. Jones Science Award, whatever that is. But a quick Google search only leads to Amazon.com or answersingenesis.org as relevant hits.

[PeZook]

It seems there is no such award, or it's so insignificant that it isn't mentioned at all on any academic website. Funnily enough, googling the name turns up talkorigins and various bookstores selling the guy's book.

I can bet dollars to donuts he made it up, and simply expects nobody to check any deeper than the impressive-sounding name. People like this do it all the time when they need to sound as something more than idiots. Remember Ralph Rene, the "self-taught structural engineer"?

[DPDarkPrimus]

I can bet dollars to donuts he made it up, and simply expects nobody to check any deeper than the impressive-sounding name. People like this do it all the time when they need to sound as something more than idiots. Remember Ralph Rene, the "self-taught structural engineer"?

Or Stewart T. Davies, head of the Stratigic Defense Instatute.

[PeZook]

Well, Stuart's typo-ridden posts wouldn't really have a chance at being seen as reliable by anyone except clinical retards. On the other hand, sleek rhetorical tricks pulled by the likes of Rene (I'm an engineer!) can actually fool people.

Oh, I also like Bill Kaysing. So wonderfully dishonest of him and his little cult to claim he knows what he's talking about: He was an employee at Rocketdyne!

A casual listener goes "Wow! He worked with rockets, he's an authority on this stuff!"

Except they always omit a few minor details: he was an editor of technical publications not an engineer, has a degree in English and left the company in 1963 anyway.

This is why I'm always suspect of "experts" with lots of lettes before their names supporting an outrageous position.

[Darth Onasi]

Frankly if they have to resort to this, then it only supports that there's no viable alternative theory to evolution.
They can't present their ideas on their own merits, oh no. They always have to be "converts". They "believed" in evolution and saw the light!

These tactics just show that they view evolution as some kind of rival religion, with believers and followers who need to be swayed to God's path.

[Eleas]

These tactics just show that they view evolution as some kind of rival religion, with believers and followers who need to be swayed to God's path.

The alternative is to admit that religion and science is based on different paradigms. They don't want to do that for very pragmatic reasons: if two creeds can't compete on a level playing field, you have to ask which one of them is most suited to occupy the field. That's a question fundamentalists of this calibre do not want asked, because it turns their blustering certitude into a liability rather than an asset.

[TheManWithNoName]

Holy hell, I've never heard such bullshit in all of my life... (Actually, yeah I have - every other creationist argument rings a bell.)

He somehow managed to take every typical creationist argument and subsequently mold it into his own brand of stupidity. I'm kicking myself right now for not having filmed it for you guys. Besides the fact that he demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works, his arguments were incredibly stupid. Here's a summary of what he said, with some quotes that I remember thrown in (I am NOT making any of this up, he actually said this!):

First off, he began with the typical probability argument, but with his own twist. He stated that the chances of the right gene to mutating in just the right way for a whale to have evolved the way it did were astronomical. "And that's only for just one letter of the DNA code," he said after that.

An attack on classification followed. "Well you've got these two animals here, and they look exactly the same, but scientists claim they're not related at all. Come on now, that can't be true. They have to be related. I mean come on, they look exactly the same!"

He then brought up what seemed to be his most important point - the fossil record. He claimed that according to evolution, mice evolved into bats, so we should find fossils of transition species from mice to bats. Since we haven't, he claimed, that means it didn't happen. He quoted some scientist who said that the fossil record is complete, which in his mind undoubtedly proved that the fossil record was complete. "Out of the millions of fossils found, you'd think at least some of them would've been a transitional species between mice and bats." He then claimed that hundreds more examples were in his book, which he had been pushing throughout the evening.

After that, he attacked human evolution. For the millionth time, we had to endure his story of his "research". He had traveled to over 60 different museums and photographed every different fossil at each one. Consistently, he stated that you couldn't argue with him, because you hadn't been to this museum, or that museum, or interviewed this curator, or that curator. His argument boiled down to, "fossil records of human ancestors are made up." According to him, Lucy is fake. Also according to him, other fossils he personally saw were fake as well. He cited one specific example of a Neanderthal fossil that he claimed to be fake due its teeth being ground down (again, we had to take his word, because he was there, and you weren't). After that, he stated that through his extensive research, he had found evidence that almost every living species of today was alive with the dinosaurs. Modern vascular plants, birds, hedgehogs, you name it. He went through his book and showed us some examples of his "fossil evidence". According to him, there are no fossils of dinosaurs evolving into birds, so evolution is false. "Now I just want someone to show me... a pathway. The earliest dinosaur evolving into a triceratops, evolving into a T-rex, evolving into something, evolving into birds. Nobody's been able to do that yet. That's because it didn't happen!"

He tried to fool the audience into thinking that wasn't a creationist, but didn't do a very good job. "And for all you Creationists out there, don't think that you'll get off easy too. You guys have serious flaws in your thinking as well," he said. However, it became pretty obvious that he was advocating creationism for several reasons. The big giveaway in my eyes was the fact that he brought up creationism immediately as an alternative to evolution in his examples, moronically assuming that holes in evolution must be proof of creationism. Apparently, for the longest time, he was on the fence about evolution, and, according to him, he would have to accept creationism if evolution was false. "Now suppose that, just for the sake of argument that evolution is false, that life was created on Earth in its present form," he typically prefaced. After he was finished "creaming" evolution, he finished up with something to the extent of, "well, maybe the creationists were right..."

Darwin was briefly attacked. He established that Darwin was a racist, as he called blacks a transition species. He even stated that Darwin advocated use and disuse, and that it was a big part of his theory!

The Q and A session was hilarious. He cut people off whenever they had a good point, and did not let anybody finish their thought. Ironically, he kept on bragging about how he loved a good challenge, and that he was glad that the audience was keeping him sharp.

Overall, a huge idiot. These weren't all of his points. If I remember any more, I'll put them up.

[Patrick Degan]

So basically, he appeals to his own authority, argues from incredulity, goes question-begging, logic-leaping, and cherry-picks the evidence. Then finally handwaves. That is, when he's not outright lying.

[mr friendly guy]

So what exactly is this "Doctor" a doctor of? Besides crap of course, does he actually have real qualifications?

It may very well be possible that he has a doctorate, but it would most likely be unrelated to the field he is arguing. Examples include Deeprak Chopra who is an MD but sprouts utter tripe with his quantum healing and dare I say it, Michael Behe, who may be a talented biochemist, albeit with a lack of imagination and logic, and certainly isn't an expert on evolution since he obviously can't grasp the basics of it.